We’ll just have to agree to disagree. Thinking of it as a numbers of experts game is flawed. My first expert, Dershowitz, is better than all your second-rate wannabes. He is one of the foremost defense attorneys, Constitutional scholar, and a Harvard law professor. He is also a Democrat and Hillary supporter. When he says he would easily get a “not guilty” verdict, I find it completely convincing. It outweighs all your so called experts. He got OJ off- and knows this case based on convoluted interpretations of campaign law will not play well with a jury, if a judge even allows it to proceed.
How do you impute Trump knew he was committing a criminal violation? What if he succumbed to extortion because he did not like bad publicity or because it would cause problems in his marriage. Many public figures have paid hush money. You have no way of going inside his head. Your star witness, Cohen, is a convicted perjurer. He might not even be allowed to testify and without him you’ve got nada. Further even if Cohen is allowed to testify, everything he and Trump talked about will be excluded as privileged communication. It all adds up to a ton of reasonable doubt. The jury will exclude all avid Trump haters. Finally there are enough thorny legal issues that either Barr or the Supreme Court will put a stop to this type of prosecution if it ever gets before them. Truly this case is pathetic and has zero chance of a producing a criminal conviction against Trump. I know you think otherwise. I commend you for raising good points, but I guess we must agree to disagree.